M/S S.K. Steels vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that the order dated 24.08.2021, passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017, could not stand as it appeared to have been passed ex-parte against the petitioner without considering their claim of ownership and the evidence of payment. The Court found that the petitioner had submitted a reply and deposited the requisite amount on 23.08.2021, which was the date fixed in the proceedings. The reasoning was that the conclusion reached by the respondent was contrary to the petitioner's claim and was made without due consideration of the submitted evidence. Therefore, the order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's claim over the goods. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 13.10.2021, and the authority was to pass an order within one week thereafter. All consequential proceedings were to abide by the fresh order.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s S.K. Steels, is challenging an order dated 24.08.2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017. The petitioner claims to be the owner of goods purchased from M/s N.K. Traders, which were intercepted by authorities in Meerut on 13.08.2021 during transportation. A show cause notice was issued on 17.08.2021, requiring a reply by 23.08.2021. The petitioner asserts that a written reply was submitted on 23.08.2021, along with an online deposit of Rs. 1,37,232/-, equivalent to the tax payable and penalty. The impugned order concluded that the goods were not traceable to a bona-fide owner, leading to the demand under Section 129(1)(b).
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 24.08.2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for having been passed ex-parte without considering the petitioner's claim of ownership and reply. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering their claim of ownership and the written reply submitted on 23.08.2021, along with the deposit of Rs. 1,37,232/-. They contended that the demand under Section 129(1)(b) was illegal as it failed to acknowledge their bona-fide ownership. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the goods were not traceable to a bona-fide owner. However, the Court noted that the impugned order appeared to have been passed without considering the petitioner's claim.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 129(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 865 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S S.K. Steels Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the UP GST Authority. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 24.08.2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as to the 'Act'). The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the true owner of the goods that have been seized. Those goods had been purchased by the petitioner from a dealer M/s N.K. Traders at Saran (Bihar). While the goods were being transported to the petitioner, they were intercepted by the authorities under the Act, at Meerut, on 13.08.2021. Undisputedly, show cause notice was issued on 17.08.2021 calling for a reply by 23.08.2021. While the petitioner claims to have submitted his written reply on 23.08.2021, he further claims to have deposited Rs. 1,37,232/- through on-line mode
on 23.08.2021 itself being amount equivalent to the tax payable on the goods de
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.